Under Fire: Pat Robertson Alzheimer’s Comment Outrages America
Televangelist Pat Robertson’s comments about leaving a spouse who has Alzheimer’s have drawn fire from every outlet imaginable. Evangelical Christian megachurch leaders condemned Robertson’s advice to a viewer of his 700 Club show that it’s OK to leave a spouse for another love interest if the spouse has Alzheimer’s. Christianity Today Magazine wrote, “Pat Robertson Repudiates the Gospel.” And The Alzheimer’s Foundation of America issued a statement advocating compassion for Alzheimer’s patients and their families and classified Robertson’s comment as insensitive.
Eric J. Hall, founding president and chief executive officer of the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America, in a statement said that Robertson’s comments highlight the very need for greater efforts to educate the public about the impact of Alzheimer’s disease on individuals and their families, and to destroy the stigma and misperceptions that surround the brain disorder.
“There is no doubt that this heartbreaking disease robs people of their memories and other intellectual functions, but to liken Alzheimer’s disease to, as Mr. Robertson said, ‘a kind of death’ fosters an insensitivity that feeds misperceptions about the disease,” Hall said. “It fails to take into account that people with Alzheimer’s disease, although impaired, deserve optimal care and dignity. Love and compassion are the greatest gifts for every human being until their very last breath.”
Ironically, Robertson’s fellow Christian leaders were not as kind.
The Christian Post offers these comments:
“I’m just flabbergasted,” Joel Hunter, pastor of the 15,000-member Northland Church in Orlando, Fla., told ABC News. “I just don’t know how anyone who is reading Scripture or is even familiar with the traditional wedding vows can come out with a statement like that.”
Hunter continued, “Obviously, we can all rationalize the legitimacy for our own comfort that would somehow make it OK to divorce our spouse if circumstances become very different or inconvenient. … That’s almost universal, but there’s just no way you can get out of what Jesus says about marriage.”
…
ABC News also spoke with Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).
According to Anderson, marriage is a lifelong and faithful commitment between a man and a woman that calls for the couple to endure good times and bad.
Anderson referred to the book of Corinthians when he spoke with ABC News, saying, “The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. You can’t quit your own body with Alzheimer’s, so you shouldn’t quit your husband’s or wife’s body either.”
Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, reacted to Robertson’s comments on Twitter, writing, “This is what happens when you abandon Scripture and do theology and morality by your gizzard. Let’s call it what it is.”
John Piper, of Desiring God Ministries, also commented on Twitter, writing, “Pat Robertson’s view of how Christ loves the church and gives himself for her. Leave her for another.”
Christianity Today writes,
This is more than an embarrassment. This is more than cruelty. This is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Few Christians take Robertson all that seriously anymore. Most roll their eyes, and shake their heads when he makes another outlandish comment (for instance, defending China’s brutal one-child abortion policy to identifying God’s judgment on specific actions in the September 11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, or the Haiti earthquake). This is serious, though, because it points to an issue that is much bigger than Robertson.
William Saletan at Slate says “Robertson has been denounced not just as a hypocrite by liberals, but as a heretic by Christians,” but pens a despicably supportive piece about Robertson, mischaracterizing Robertson’s words, saying, “Robertson didn’t advocate divorce.” Perhaps Saletan would like to watch the video again?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_qt_JCnRdCQ%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US
Saletan expands the comments made by Joel Hunter to ABC:
Joel Hunter, a prominent evangelical pastor, sees no wiggle room in [Robertson’s] words. “We can all rationalize” that it’s “OK to divorce our spouse if circumstances become very different or inconvenient,” Hunter told ABC News. But “we have to stop trying to mischaracterize what Scripture says for our own convenience.” Hunter worried that “you could do this for anything.” For example: “My husband watches and plays video games, and so he has left the marriage, and it’s kind of like a death.”
For the record, here’s what Pat Robertson actually said, courtesy of Slate:
At the tail end of Tuesday’s show, his cohost, Terry Meeuwsen, read a chat-room question from a man seeking advice. The message said:
I have a friend whose wife suffers from Alzheimer’s. She doesn’t even recognize him anymore, and, as you can imagine, the marriage has been rough. My friend has gotten bitter at God for allowing his wife to be in that condition, and now he’s started seeing another woman. He says that he should be allowed to see other people because his wife as he knows her is gone … I’m not quite sure what to tell him.
Meeuwsen turned to Robertson for an answer. In the video, you can see him struggling:
That is a terribly hard thing. I hate Alzheimer’s. It is one of the most awful things, because here’s the loved one—this is the woman or man that you have loved for 20, 30, 40 years, and suddenly that person is gone. They’re gone. They are gone. So what he says basically is correct, but—I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again. But to make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her—
Meeuwsen interjected: “But isn’t that the vow that we take when we marry someone, that it’s for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer?” To this, Robertson replied,
Yeah, I know, if you respect that vow, but you say “till death do us part,” this is a kind of death. So that’s what he’s saying, is that she’s like—but this is an ethical question that is beyond my ken to tell you. But I certainly wouldn’t put a guilt trip on you if you decided that you had to have companionship. You’re lonely, and you’re asking for some companionship, as opposed to—but what a grief. I know one man who went to see his wife every single day, and she didn’t recognize him one single day, and she would complain that he never came to see her. And it’s really hurtful, because they say crazy things. … It is a terribly difficult thing for somebody, and I can’t fault them for wanting some kind of companionship. And if he says in a sense she is gone, he’s right. It’s like a walking death. But get some ethicist besides me to give you the answer, because I recognize the dilemma and the last thing I’d do is condemn you for taking that kind of action.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Stephen Miller’s latest anti-immigrant rant is drawing attention, including from a well-known Catholic Jesuit priest, who appeared to liken the White House Deputy Chief of Staff’s remarks to those made by Hitler’s notorious Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, in 1941.
Miller, one of the most powerful members of the Trump administration, is seen as the principal architect of the President’s anti-immigration and deportation policies.
“U.S. Marines on the streets of Los Angeles. Masked immigration officers at courthouses and popular restaurants. Bans on travelers from more than a dozen countries,” Reuters reported on Friday. “For senior White House aide Stephen Miller, the architect of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, things were going according to plan.”
READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
Denouncing the city government of Los Angeles as “waging a campaign of insurrection against the federal government,” Miller on Friday painted a scenario without undocumented immigrants in remarks made to Fox News.
“Let’s be very clear,” he said. “What would Los Angeles look like without illegal aliens?”
“Here’s what it would look like: You would be able to see a doctor in the emergency room right away, no wait time, no problem. Your kids would go to a public school that had more money than they know what to do with. Classrooms would be half the size. Students who had special needs would get all the attention that they needed.”
“There would be no violent transnational gangs. There would be no cartels. There would be no Mexican Mafia. There would be no Sureños. There would be no MS-13 There would be no TdA.”
“You would be living in a city that would be safe, that would be clean, there would be no fentanyl, there would be no drug dens,” he alleged. “That could be the future Los Angeles could have, but the leaders in Los Angeles have formed an alliance with the cartels and their criminal aliens.”
READ MORE: Record Majority of Americans Support Immigration in Massive Blow to Trump Agenda
Some of Miller’s claims are incorrect. For example, public schools often receive state funding in part based on the number of students and their attendance rate. Fewer students in classrooms means fewer dollars. And federal funding is tied to the number of low-income students and students with disabilities.
Miller’s claims about fentanyl and “drug dens” also don’t hold up. Most fentanyl comes into the U.S. via U.S. citizens, according to the Cato Institute.
Father James Martin, editor-at-large for America Magazine, which is published by the Jesuits, responded to Miller’s remarks by posting a quote from Goebbels:
“The enemy is in our midst. What makes more sense than to at least make this plainly visible to our citizens?”
It’s not the first time Father Martin has responded to Miller’s anti-immigrant rants with a quote.
In April, he quoted the Bible:
“‘I was a stranger and you did not welcome me’ (Matthew 25).”
See Martin’s post and video of Miller’s remarks below or at this link.
“The enemy is in our midst. What makes more sense than to at least make this plainly visible to our citizens?” Joseph Goebbels, Nov 16, 1941. https://t.co/f6cHSLqlbU https://t.co/lACjN2F9Ql
— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) July 11, 2025
READ MORE: ‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’
Image via Shutterstock
A record-high majority—nearly eight in ten Americans—now view immigration positively, with similarly strong support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants—particularly those brought to the U.S. as children. The Gallup poll also found that most Americans favor maintaining or increasing current immigration levels.
Meanwhile, large segments of the public oppose expanding the number of immigration enforcement agents—a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. Overall, just 35% of Americans approve of Trump’s immigration policies, while 65% disapprove.
Gallup’s report deals a major blow to the very core of President Donald Trump’s agenda, and his “One Big, Beautiful Bill” that dramatically increases spending on immigration enforcement, including detention camps, deportations, and removal, even to third-party countries.
RELATED: ‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’
“Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today,” Gallup reported on Friday. “At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.”
When asked if immigration is generally a good thing or bad thing for the country, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults call it a good thing; a record-low 17% see it as a bad thing. pic.twitter.com/VCGVplgsE9
— Gallup (@Gallup) July 11, 2025
“These shifts reverse a four-year trend of rising concern about immigration that began in 2021 and reflect changes among all major party groups,” the top-rated pollster also reported.
Now, just 38% of Americans support deporting all undocumented immigrants, in vast contrast to the stated Trump agenda. That’s down from 47% last year.
In what could be seen as a warning to the GOP, Gallup notes that “the desire for less immigration has fallen among all party groups, but it is most pronounced among Republicans, down 40 percentage points over the past year to 48%.”
Just this week, several top Trump administration officials have continued to promote his anti-immigrant policies.
READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins this week told reporters there will be “no amnesty” for undocumented farm workers while insisting adults on Medicaid could replace them.
“There will be no amnesty, the mass deportations continue, but in a strategic way, and we move the workforce towards automation and 100% American participation,” Secretary Rollins said.
Republican Senators have been promoting the Trump anti-immigrant agenda as well. On Thursday, U.S. Senator Ashley Moody (R-FL) called Democrats who oppose the often warrantless raids and tactics used by the DHS’s frequently masked ICE agents, “ignorant pawns of a subversive anarchist agenda.”
President Donald Trump’s and the Republican Party’s budget, which Trump signed into law last weekend, is tremendously unpopular, including his exponential expansion of immigration enforcement budgets, as well as aspects that gut vital social safety net programs like Medicaid and Medicare.
Critics praised Gallup’s findings.
“Nativism had its 6 months and now it’s clear that it’s not the answer,” wrote Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies David J. Bier.
NBC News senior national political reporter Sahil Kapur, pointing to the Gallup statistics, called it “backlash politics.”
“Turns out, mass kidnappings and deportations are deeply unpopular when put into practice,” observed New York State Democratic Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher.
See the social media post above or at this link.
READ MORE: Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s hand-picked border czar, Tom Homan, is facing backlash from legal and political experts after asserting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents do not need “probable cause” to detain individuals—and can do so based on factors like “personal appearance.”
“Look, people need to understand,” Homan told Fox News on Friday. ICE officers “don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain and question them.”
“They just need to tally the circumstances, right?” he claimed. “They just go through their observation, you know, get out typical facts based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions.”
“A uniformed border police officer walks up to them, for instance, at a Home Depot. And they got all these … facts, plus the person walks away or runs away,” Homan said, offering one scenario. “Agents are trained. What they need to detain somebody temporarily and question them.”
READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
“It’s not probable cause,” he insisted. “It’s reasonable suspicion.”
“We’re trained on that. Every agent, every six months, gets Fourth Amendment training over and over again,” Homan said.
Legal experts blasted Homan’s remarks.
Professor of Law, former U.S. Attorney and MSNBC/NBC News legal analyst Joyce Vance summed up Homan’s remarks: “Racial profiling.”
“This is patently false,” declared U.S. Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY), also an attorney, “DHS has authority to question and search people coming into the country at points of entry. But ICE may not detain and question anyone without reasonable suspicion — and certainly not based on their physical appearance alone. This lawlessness must stop.”
Attorney and California Democratic state Senator Scott Wiener charged, “This is literally the definition of a white nationalist police state.”
U.S. Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY) warned, “Trump’s thugs will racially profile you, then go on national television to brag about getting away with it.”
READ MORE: Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief
Attorney and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold explained, “Walking up to people (without threatening) is legal. But ‘detaining’ people without ‘reasonable suspicion’ of criminal or quasi-criminal activity is illegal. Racial profiling is not cause for the required reasonable suspicion. ‘Let me see your papers’ is un-American.”
U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA), who, in a highly-publicized incident was forcibly removed and handcuffed by federal agents at a DHS press conference, wrote: “And there you have it. Under the Trump Administration, ICE and Border Patrol are being empowered to stop and question you based solely on how you look. No probable cause. No real reason. Just your ‘physical appearance.’ That’s not justice—it’s profiling.”
“They’re saying the quiet part out loud now,” wrote New York Democratic State Senator Gustavo Rivera. “Don’t get it twisted: if we let them keep doing this, they’ll find a reason to come for ANY ONE OF US soon enough.”
“THEY ARE ADMITTING IT,” wrote David J. Bier, Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies and an expert on legal immigration, border security, and interior enforcement. “Homan is admitting to participating in a criminal conspiracy against the Constitution of the United States,” he alleged.
Max Flugrath, communications director for Fair Fight Action, wrote: “Trump’s Border Czar and Project 2025 contributor says ICE can detain anyone based on ‘suspicion’ and physical ‘appearance.’ That’s not immigration policy, it’s fascism.”
Watch the video below or at this link:
Homan: “People need to understand ICE officers and Border Patrol don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them … based on their physical appearance.” pic.twitter.com/aQzwepaHpk
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 11, 2025
READ MORE: Trump Dodges, Denies and Deflects Questions as Ukraine Weapons Scandal Grows
Image via Reuters
Stephen Miller’s Latest Rant Prompts Priest to Cite Goebbels Propaganda
Record Majority of Americans Support Immigration in Massive Blow to Trump Agenda
‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’
Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief
‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
News3 days ago‘Secretary Chaos’: Hegseth Running ‘Absolute Clown Show’ Critics Say, Amid Calls to Resign
News3 days agoTrump Dodges, Denies and Deflects Questions as Ukraine Weapons Scandal Grows
News2 days ago‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
News3 days ago‘No Amnesty’ and No Plan: Trump Ag Sec Grilled on Farm Labor as Deportations Continue
News3 days ago‘Not Even Done Your Homework, Sir’: Dem Demands ‘Unqualified’ Trump Nominee ‘Shape Up’
News2 days ago‘Absolute Cringe’: DHS Ridiculed After Attacking CNN Report—by Confirming It
News2 days agoGOP Senator Denounces Anti-ICE Democrats as ‘Pawns’ of an ‘Anarchist Agenda’
News1 day agoStephen Miller’s Latest Rant Prompts Priest to Cite Goebbels Propaganda